Infringement Contentions Must Disclose Not Only The Result of Allegedly Infringing Process, But Also The "Product Configurations and Additional

End User Programming" Used to Generate Such Results

Defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to disclose how it configured the accused products to produce alleged infringement was granted. "[Defendant] complains that neither the screenshots provided, not [plaintiff's] infringement contentions and citations to various portions of [defendant's] source code, disclose the particular configurations of the accused products that [plaintiff] alleges infringe. . . . Forcing [defendant] to 'guess' as to what infringement [plaintiff] alleges by its screenshots, regardless of whether [plaintiff] provided sufficient detail as to other infringement contentions, violates the principles of both Rule 26 and Pat. L.R. 3-1. . . . Because [plaintiff's] screenshots here merely show the result of the accused [] process, the specific allegedly infringing product configurations and additional end use programming -- conditions that are at least arguably 'material to patentability' -- are required to properly put [defendant] on notice."

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, et. al., 5-09-cv-05897 (CAND June 15, 2011, Order) (Grewal, M.J.)